- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@midwest.social
My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don’t move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.
My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don’t move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.
I would counter that “AI clean rooming” is not clean rooming, because they are feeding the actual code to imitate directly. Even ignoring the training, it has, verbatim, the object code and is trying to make code that compiles to match the object code. It isn’t deriving the functions to a spec and the using the spec to go back to code.
I would further counter that the Compaq case dovetails with the idea that APIs are broadly not copyrightable in and of themselves. Compaq cloned a thin ABI layer, which was not considered substantial by itself, so the argument rested with whether the implementing backend necessarily infringed in resemblance or if resemblance derived from merely following a similar asked. If you clone an entire application down to the human presentation, I think no “clean room” argument would overcome that you cloned far more than some thin application to library interface.